Letters -- Published Feb. 8, 2013

Before our Constitution was drafted, state legislatures already had in place laws that carrying guns was a "right." Antifederalists wanted federal framers to include that "right" in case states or federal government were to prohibit the carrying/owning of arms.

Comment

By The Record

recordnet.com

By The Record

Posted Feb. 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM

By The Record

Posted Feb. 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

Before our Constitution was drafted, state legislatures already had in place laws that carrying guns was a "right." Antifederalists wanted federal framers to include that "right" in case states or federal government were to prohibit the carrying/owning of arms.

When voting on ratification of the Constitution, it was almost rejected as anti-federalists were worried certain God-given "rights" were not included. They were promised if it passed, a Bill of Rights would be added to encompass those "rights" that had been omitted.

The "right" of bearing arms for defense of self and family is not given to us by governments. Certain "rights," among them self-defense, are natural, God-given "rights," and antifederalists wanted the framers to have that "right" written into the Bill of Rights so no government, federal, state, or local officials could disarm the populace.

Up until 1776, the United States of America was British North America and subject to English laws. English armies had impounded guns and gunpowder from locals during times of revolt against unfair taxes and such. Never again! Lesson learned!

We cannot allow our representatives to rule on anything to do with our guns. I believe that now is a critical time when gun law changes may become politically correct.

Something needs to be done, but we have gun laws already in place that cover nearly all situations.

Constitutionally minded people must remain on their toes as our adversaries are not doing what is best for this country. Their agenda is total disarmament. It starts with one gun being restricted.

Mike McCusker

Stockton

When developers have used up all arable land and there is nothing left for growing food, what will we be eating then? There are too many people, too many cars, and too much bad air already.

And now, we are considering amnesty for the 11 million illegal immigrants here after the last amnesty. Crossings over the Arizona border have increased ten-fold over the past few days, anticipating a new amnesty. The Coast Guard is recovering abandoned boats all up and down the California coast used by illegals forcing their way into this country. Our laws allowing extended family reunification cause an endless chain of immigrants. Free food, housing, health care, education, etc. And for jobs, easy false documents. Not to mention, increased crime caused by our open borders, easily overcome by tunnels and ladders.

Politicians are only interested in new voters for their own cause, not keep for the middle class who find their wages undercut by illegals.

Enough already! And, this amnesty will add $2 trillion to the national deficit.

B. A. Rogers

Stockton

The closing of the outlying courts is the wrong way to go.

There have been stories about the increasing number of problems with the county courthouse - broken elevators, long lines, deteriorating building, etc.

Why add to these problems by adding even more people, when they could be eased somewhat by moving people out into the auxiliary courts in Lodi, Tracy and Manteca?

Lodi has good holding cells and two courts. I don't know about Manteca and Tracy in this respect.

Since these outlying courts cost the county something to use, but having to bring all cases into Stockton will cost the cities something, why can't an equitable arrangement be worked out?

Easing the time lost in the present courthouse situation would surely save something in costs and salaries.

Also, using the outlying courts might make it easier to find more jurors, who, for one reason or another, cannot make their way to Stockton or walk distances outside or inside of the building.